Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The error "line feed character in |publisher= at position 26" is not cool. Templates are supposed to be whitespace-agnostic, and if the template can detect the presence of an LF it can also strip it out for metadata purposes. This is an impediment to copy-pasting source details.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Line feeds create many more issues than just those concerning metadata, and they should be fixed at the wikitext level.

b

} 03:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Somehow WP has failed to fall apart as the result of LFs being present, which they often can be. This is not a citation issue, and the citation template should not be barfing on cite data or metadata to try to force people to fix something they can't even see. The averaged editor probably doesn't even know what an LF is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WP also has also failed to fall apart as the result of vandalism. Doesn't mean vandalism shouldn't be fixed. Likewise for stray line feeds which can cause both rendering accessibility issues.

b

} 12:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a

WP:GREATWRONGS argument. Cite templates are not the place to try to do anti-LF enforcement. Way, way out of scope. It's abusing a core function and necessity of the encyclopedia (citing sources) to try to arm-twist people into doing geek work for which many of them are not competent. Don't insert work- or behavior-coercion "riders" into basic functionality templates. Have a bot look for LFs and remove them. This is what we have bots for. Also, your analogy is false; WP has failed to fall apart at the hands of vandals because and only because of the constant work a large number of anti-vandals. There is no huge cadre of anti-LF editors, and WP works just fine without one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've set up the bot request for you, at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 75#Linefeed "hunter-killer". Feel free to make it more specific or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Must say that this is a very useful feature of the templates as it catches many vandal edits as does the date error messages. Keith D (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bots can certainly assist in cleanup, but that doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be flagged in the first place.

b

} 01:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

As an average editor who learned what an LF was precisely because of this error, I agree that it's beyond the fixing capacity of many. That said, it is an error that ought to be identified because an invisible character in a URL is still a character and is contaminating the usefulness of the information. I see it as similar to date errors: while potentially difficult/unintuitive to fix, it causes problems, and so it needs to be identified. Leave the error message and get the bot to do its work. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It somehow escaped us to include the error handlers for the cases where {{

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Can |collaboration-link= be made, analogous to |author-link=, etc.? Example @

Why? The purpose of |author-link= is to provide a way of linking a |last=, |first= pair because the two cannot be wikilinked. But, |collaboration= can be wikilinked:

{{cite journal
|author = M. H. Ahn
|collaboration=[[K2K experiment#Collaboration|K2K Collaboration]]
|date = 2006
|title = Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation by the K2K Experiment
|journal = [[Physical Review D]]
|volume = 74|pages = 072003
|doi = 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003
|id = 
|arxiv=hep-ex/0606032
|bibcode = 2006PhRvD..74g2003A
|issue = 7 }}

M. H. Ahn; et al. (

doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003

.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, my force of habit. Thanks!   ~ 

dgaf

)  15:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I need to add the <ref></ref> myself afterwards?! —

If you want your reference to be in a footnote, yes. There are many cases where citations should not be in footnotes (for instance, when they are part of a separate list of references at the end of an article and the footnotes only give short links to them), so it would be a bad idea to bundle the footnoting code into the citation templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@

velut luna

17:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

{{cite thesis}} supports page numbers:

{{cite thesis |title=Title |pages=3–9}}

Title (Thesis). pp. 3–9.

Why would you say that it doesn't. Can you provide an example showing that it doesn't?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith there, Trappist. Was going by [1]. —

velut luna

20:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a direct link to the documentation for |page= in {{cite thesis}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much

velut luna

14:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get a sub-class of cite encyclopedia for citing collections that are not encyclopedias? Perhaps "cite collection"? I realize there is no technical reason for this, but the semantic context is currently being obscured and that is a Bad Thing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Rather than everyone imagining what it is that they think that you mean, perhaps you could supplement your request with a real-life (not contrived) example?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Just use a redirect like {{

Cite contribution}} if you are uncomfortable with the template name. Or make a new redirect at {{Cite collection}}. PrimeHunter (talk

) 13:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

{{cite book|year= 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (8). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

{{cite book|year= 8 AD|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (8 AD). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

{{cite book|year= 56 CE|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (56 CE). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

{{cite book|year= 56|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (56). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

{{cite book|year= 267|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (267). ABC.

{{cite book|year= 124 BCE|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (124 BCE). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

{{cite book|year= -56|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (-56). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

{{cite book|year= 3 BC|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (3 BC). ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

It appears to need a three digit absolute magnitude value or greater. This is clearly an error in the processor. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This topic is related to

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

applies.

Also, your post here is a duplicate of a post you made at Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 3#Years and Classical publications from Antiquity. One conversation in one place only, please.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Photographs of published Latin works do exist, and there have been digitization efforts as well. So, accessing such, would the date the work was digitized or photographed be your "source date" ? This is a generalized query, since I've used old Latin sources for other things in the past (though with triple or quadruple digit years) I would expect that the citation template should work for older dates as well. Some Wikipedian editors can read Latin or Greek or Hebrew or Chinese, so ancient documents are accessible to some of the general population of editors here at Wikipedia, thus the citation template should be able to support this editor population. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless you're literally at a museum looking at manuscripts/tablets/whatever dating from antiquity, I don't see how there would be an issue. Can you give an example where the date of publication (not the date of authorship) of a source you cite would be in the double digits?

Edit: Personally for a well known text such at the Metamorphoses you can probably just do

{{cite book|author=Ovid|title=Metamorphoses|at=II.153}}

Ovid. Metamorphoses. II.153.

That's generally how I've works like the CMoS say to cite classical works unless it really matters which edition you're using, e.g., if there's some debate as to the original text. Umimmak (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not deny that facsimiles of sources exist nor that there are editors here who can read them. Facsimiles abound on the internet:

Ovid (1889). "Book the Second: Fable I". In Riley, Henry T. (ed.). Metamorphoses. Translated by Riley. London: George Bell & Sons. p. 51.

But apparently, there are no surviving first-century manuscripts of Metamorphoses (so says the en.wiki

WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT

suggest that citing Metamorphoses and using |year=8 AD is inappropriate. Cite the source that you read.

When the cs1|2 templates were first written, there were technical reasons for limiting minimum |year= values to three digits. While the technical limitation no-longer applies because of new technology, the constraint was left in and, but for the occasional case like the one in hand, there has been little call to extend date-handling support to cover all time. When the scholars of ancient texts take up their pitchforks and torches and clamber for ancient-date support in cs1|2, we can certainly consider it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Since Chinese over the last 2000 years is readable to modern Chinese readership, if they've been trained to read Classical Chinese (ie. 19th century Chinese and before) I would say that such sourcing would be expected for some topics. Or if you're a Brahmin and quoting Sanskrit sources of the past 3000 years. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, the year something was originally written is distinct from the year of publication of the source the editor got the text from. Umimmak (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There are still good reasons to mark three-digit years as an error. Most three-digit years, like "year=207", are typos for four-digit years, like "year=2017". The error check finds these frequently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be able to be specified with an override of some sort, like providing "BCE" or "AD" in the parameter ? Or a plus or a minus sign? (ie. French-style dates with minus-signs for BC dates) -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

|orig-year= works well for citing the original publication dates of older works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you need a |date= as well though, see: {{cite book|author=Ovid|title=Metamorphoses|at=II.153|orig-year=8 AD}} which produces Ovid. Metamorphoses. II.153. Umimmak (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

{{cite book|orig-year= 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX. ABC.

{{cite book|orig-year= 8|year= AD 8|title= ABC|author= ZYX}}

ZYX (AD 8) [8]. ABC. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

That "|orig-year=" indeed does not provide the year unless "|year=" is specified per Umimask. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a feature request. In lists of works by the subject of an article, eg.

May I point out that the first entry in any masked list should have the full citation reference, including the name of the author. Otherwise it is unclear what exactly you are masking. This holds for works by an article's subject as well, even when it is obvious who the author is. Secondly, in most citation applications, works are universally indexed by author(s) first (though some specialized systems may index by title/date rather than author/date). Since you decided to use CS1 to populate this list (a good idea, imo), the style should be followed. If this style doesn't suit your needs, I suggest formatting the list differently, without the strictures of CS1. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know what is wrong with this?

{{cite book|last1=Mackie|first1=Gerry|editor1-last=Shell-Duncan|editor1-first=Bettina|editor2-last=Hernlund|editor2-first=Ylva|title=Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change|date=2000|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|location=Boulder|chapter=Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End​|​chapter-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029210333/http://www.polisci.ucsd.edu/~gmackie/documents/BeginningOfEndMackie2000.pdf|ref=harv}}

which produces two errors:

Mackie, Gerry (2000). "Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End​". In Shell-Duncan, Bettina; Hernlund, Ylva (eds.). Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |​chapter-url= ignored (help); zero width space character in |chapter= at position 49 (help)

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, but retyping the chapter title (without changing the chapter URL) seems to have fixed it:

{{cite book|last1=Mackie|first1=Gerry|editor1-last=Shell-Duncan|editor1-first=Bettina|editor2-last=Hernlund|editor2-first=Ylva|title=Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change|date=2000|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|location=Boulder|chapter=Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End|chapter-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029210333/http://www.polisci.ucsd.edu/~gmackie/documents/BeginningOfEndMackie2000.pdf|ref=harv}}

Mackie, Gerry (2000). "Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End" (PDF). In Shell-Duncan, Bettina; Hernlund, Ylva (eds.). Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

—David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

David, thank you! I wonder whether there was an invisible character in the chapter title. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

U+200B zero-width space. With your cursor highlight the 'E' in 'End'. Walk the highlight one character at a time to the right. You will notice that it takes an extra step to get from the 'd' in 'End' to the chapter's closing double quote character. And, interestingly enough, that is position 49 in the |chapter= parameter value, just as the error message said. Isn't that amazing?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@

b

} 00:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In the wild I discovered a reference that rendered with the (PDF) annotation but the url did not point to a pdf file. Module:Citation/CS1 is confused by a url that ends '.pdf.html'.

Fixed in the sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting example of a (hardcopy) book (with ISBN), which is part of a book series (with ISSN) and has volume, issue and number indicators (similar to a journal). Also, it contains at least one chapter by a pair of authors completely different from those authors responsible for the remainder of the book (and listed on the front cover) and the series editor. The volume number (V) is incremented every year, the issue number (I) is incremented for each book published in that year in the series (just like in a journal, except for that the number of issues in a year seems to be variable), and the number (N) is apparently a running number counting up from the first book in that publisher's series (the publisher publishes multiple series of books). So, I need either or both the {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} template to support something like this:

Steinbach, Bernd; Posthoff, Christian. Chapter 3: Boolean Differential Calculus. In: Sasao, Tsutomu; Butler, Jon T. (2010-01-15). Thornton, Mitchell A., ed. "Progress in Applications of Boolean Functions". Synthesis Lectures on Digital Circuits and Systems. 4 (1) #26 (1st ed.). San Rafael, CA, USA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers: 55–78. ISBN 978-1-60845-181-4. ISSN 1932-3166.

Issues with the current template implementation:

• The {{cite journal}} template does not support the |chapter= parameter. This is an artificial restriction based on the invalid assumption that there are no chapters in journal articles. Over the years, a lot of examples have been brought forward in older discussions showing that some longer journal articles do have chapters, and that it can be necessary to cite them individually. Let's fix this.
• Also, it is necessary to support either |series= or |work= in parallel to |chapter=.
• Since chapter author(s) are not always the same as the author(s) listed as article or book author(s) on the front, it is necessary to support a set of optional |chapter-author*= parameters when |chapter= is given as well. In some cases this can be worked around by abusing the |editor*= parameters to specify the book authors but the given example even has a series editor, so the |editor*= parameters are needed for him.
• The {{cite book}} template currently ignores the |issue= and |number= parameters - but it should support them.
• The {{cite journal}} template supports them, but handles both of them the same and does not allow both to be specified at the same time. Instead, it should allow both to be specified at the same time and (only) then use |issue= as a parameter for volume-specific numbers and |number= for independent numbers. I suggest to render this as:

V (I) #N

(If both issue and number cannot be put into meta-data at the same time, the number should be ignored in the meta-data (at least for the time being) but still be shown in the visual output.)

This would be a fully-backward compatible extension to the currently supported forms

V (I)

or

V (N)

if only one out of |issue= and |number= is given.

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, it'd be nice to have issue number for books; right now a workaround is just to do {{citation|mode=cs1|...}}, which seems to allow more options. I've also been using "contribution" if the author of a chapter isn't the author (not editor) of the rest of the book. Umimmak (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I would just do this and move on:

Steinbach, Bernd; Posthoff, Christian (2010-01-15). "Chapter 3: Boolean Differential Calculus". Progress in Applications of Boolean Functions. By Sasao, Tsutomu; Butler, Jon T. Thornton, Mitchell A. (ed.). Synthesis Lectures on Digital Circuits and Systems. Vol. 4:1 (#26) (1st ed.). San Rafael, CA, USA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers. pp. 55–78.

ISSN 1932-3166

.

That certainly gives readers enough information to be able to definitively locate the source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Concur. cs1|2 is a general purpose citation tool that is adequate to the needs of most citation requirements. It works quite well in that role. Being a general purpose tool prevents it from being a specialized, handle-all-citation-needs tool.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

An editor at kn.wiki desires to fix the cs1|2 modules there; the original post about that is here.

Some months ago I tweaked the module suite at ht.wiki so that it worked correctly and as part of that added support for simple replacement of English month names with the appropriate Haitian Creole month names. Because date support at kn.wiki will have similar problems and because I would prefer to not have multiple variations of the base code at each different wiki (if it can be avoided) I have implemented the ht.wiki tweaks in the en.wiki sandbox. These changes should make it easier for other wikis to maintain currency with the en.wiki module suite.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

In Nancy Temkin I have a source whose authors are "National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Committee on Sports-Related Concussions in Youth", which I have placed into the |author= parameter. This puts the article into an inappropriate maintenance category, Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list. It is not a multiple-name author list; it is a single institutional author name that happens to have commas in it. How do I avoid the maintenance category and the inevitable bot mangling of this name? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You might consider rewriting the citation in the form that the publisher recommends on this page:

{{citation |page=2037 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DBafAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2037 |title=Sports-Related Concussions in Youth: Improving the Science, Changing the Culture |author=Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council (NRC) |location=Washington DC |publisher=National Academies Press |year=2014 |isbn=9780309288033}}

Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council (NRC) (2014), Sports-Related Concussions in Youth: Improving the Science, Changing the Culture, Washington DC: National Academies Press, p. 2037,

ISBN 9780309288033

The publisher's recommendation seems to match the attribution stated on the cover image of the Google books facsimile except that it leaves off 'of the National Academies'.

Were it me, I'd write |author=Institute of Medicine |author2=National Research Council because they are separate entities.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open#OA repository links

Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Anywhere t establish how? Tried adding sfn template- two big lines with ref text results! CHEERS —

What? I cannot decode what you have written. Can you clarify? Example?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, many thanks! Using virtual editor- and trying to use the short notation. If it's used by inserting as a template, then the result is ----->

Most odd! Any ideas,

velut luna

No idea. Except that the {{sfn}} template is on its own line (shouldn't be), I don't see what you are seeing in the current article. That makes me suspect VE (an abomination in my opinion – full disclosure here) or possibly, though unlikely, your browser. Perhaps raise this issue at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks

velut luna

14:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The display of |script-title= and |title= is partially mixed up. What defines and therefore what should be displayed as the title of the work is always what is printed on the book or article itself (this holds true in general, even if the title is written in a foreign script). If known and necessary, it is helpful to also display transliterations and translations, however, since neither of them is without ambiguities (several transliteration systems existed and continue to exist, and translations are even more subject to interpretation) and they are therefore only weak identifiers, this is only auxiliary information, not authorative. If only one of the two parameters is given, the {{cite journal}} template displays them as title, which is fine. However, if both are given at the same time, the template displays the actual title (then given in |script-title=) only as secondary information (after the transliteration in quotes) thereby creating the invalid impression that the transliterated title would be the actual title. Example:

{{cite journal |author-first=А. Д. |author-last=Таланцев |script-title=ru:б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов |title=Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov |language=Russian |trans-title=On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators |journal=Автоматика и телемеханика |volume=20 |number=7 |date=1959 |pages=898–907}}

erroneously renders as:

Таланцев, А. Д. (1959). "Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov" б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов [On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators]. Автоматика и телемеханика (in Russian). 20 (7): 898–907.

but should instead render as (round brackets added by me as another suggestion):

Таланцев, А. Д. (1959). "б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов" (Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov) [On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators]. Автоматика и телемеханика (in Russian). 20 (7): 898–907.

There's another (only remotely related) issue: If only a |trans-title= is given, but neither |script-title= nor |title=, the template does not display a title at all. While this is not a hard error, I think it would be beneficial if the translation gets displayed anyway (in [brackets], of course), perhaps with an edit-time warning "Missing title parameter!" or similar. This would make it easier for editors to identify the actual source and retrofit the actual title.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

On the only remotely related issue, yep, broken, now fixed in the sandbox:

And on the other, I think that the styling decision comes from this conversation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and the pointer - there's a lot of interesting stuff in that old thread, much appreciated.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your view on the presentation of titles is not shared by The Chicago Manual of Style, which suggests that original titles in Chinese or Japanese characters be placed after the romanized title. (It does not suggest original titles for other non-Latin scripts.) Nor is it plausible that anyone would mistake a romanized title placed before a script title for the original title – the only reason to include a title in a non-Latin script would be if it were the original title. Kanguole 20:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out CMOS' suggestions for Chinese and Japanese titles, I wasn't aware of them.

While I still find it somewhat counter-intuitive to not put the most authorative title first, and, according to the old thread, I'm not alone with that opinion, following an established standard is more important (unless there were strong reasons to not follow it). So, I agree with you that the order of titles should remain:

<transliterated_title> <scripted_title> <translated_title>

What I did not find addressed in the other thread is the transliterated title to be put in "quotes". Somehow, I associate those quotes with the original title. So, with both |script-title= and |title= given, wouldn't it be better if the quotes were moved to the Cyrillic title? Like in:

Таланцев, А. Д. (1959). Ob analize i sinteze nekotorykh električeskikh skhem pri pomośći special'nykh logičeskikh operatorov "б анализе и синтезе некоторых электрических схем при помощи специальных логических операторов" [On the analysis and synthesis of certain electrical circuits by means of special logical operators]. Автоматика и телемеханика (in Russian). 20 (7): 898–907.

In some Asian scripts, the quotes could be replaced by corner brackets etc.

Only in absence of |script-title= the quotes should fall back to the "next-best" title representation in |title=.

Pros? Cons?

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

In the Chinese and Japanese examples given in CMOS, the romanized titles are surrounded by quote marks, and the original titles are unadorned. Kanguole 14:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

And that is how {{cite journal}} renders titles that include |script-title=:

{{cite journal |title=Romanized Title |script-title=Script Title |trans-title=Trans Title}}

"Romanized Title" Script Title [Trans Title]. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help)

And also how {{cite book}} renders chapter titles that include |script-chapter=:

{{cite book |title=Title |chapter=Romanized Chapter |script-chapter=Script Chapter |trans-chapter=Trans Chapter}}

"Romanized Chapter" Script Chapter [Trans Chapter]. Title. {{cite book}}: Invalid |script-chapter=: missing prefix (help)

Similarly, for titles that would be italicized:

{{cite book |title=Romanized Title |script-title=Script Title |trans-title=Trans Chapter}}

Romanized Title Script Title [Trans Chapter]. {{cite book}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 33#edtf date formats as cs1|2 date parameter values. Because there is apparently no support for this 'solution', I have removed the experimental code that supported it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think EDTF is a good idea, but in order to not confuse bots trying to make sense of the |date= parameter, perhaps it should be implemented as a new parameter like |edtf-date= or similar. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If a bot is able to find and properly evaluate |edtf-date= it can find and properly evaluate |date= else it has no business being a bot.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

;-) Yes, of course. I didn't see much opposition against this format (after all, it's optional), but since you mentioned a lack of support, it was my assumption that the only possible reason not to support such an extension would be that it would somehow interfere with existing functionality here or elsewhere. Hence the idea of putting it into a separate parameter (for now), so we can be sure that it will be interpreted only by bots, spyders (and humans) who know how to interpret it, thereby eliminating the risk that these strings would end up in databases uninterpreted or even interpreted incorrectly. Well, that happens with other unknown date formats as well, so this is not a strong argument. Personally, I'm not against supporting EDTF in the |date= parameter. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't like having unused code lying about in the module suite. If we need it sometime in future, we can troll through the old versions and get it back. Because Citoid doesn't now, and as far as I can see from recent posts at T132308, may never support edtf, I don't see a need at present to support it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

edtf is now part of ISO DIS 8601 2016. Because of that, and because we may someday return to this topic, I have changed the season numbering that Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox uses to internally represent seasons. This change does not mean that suddenly |date=2017-23 is an acceptable numeric date that means Autumn 2017. We could do that but this change does not consider that.

This change does remove the season-order checking because there are cases like this double issue where |date=Spring–Winter 1971 is appropriate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

For {{

Probably mute on the subject because there is little need to micromanage. If one were in need of saving ink or were attempting to squeeze the citation into the last available space on a crowded page, then truncation would be an option to accomplish those goals. But, we don't use ink, and space is not a problem. And, for some, reading anything that's truncated causes a stutter in the flow.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there is no one citation style for page ranges, and it probably depends on the conventions of the field. The Chicago manual of style has one such set of rules about page range style. As Trappist says, publishers cared about good compression for printing, but we don't have the problem here. Use what you think is best. --Mark viking (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above, consistency within the same article is probably more important. —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The same logic applies to page number ranges, obviously. The problem with things like "2943–76" is they are not immediately parseable for what they're intended to be, and worse yet, they can often coincide with numeric dates, e.g. "1902–11" (remember that many fonts do not clearly distinguish - and –).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Also, they are neither used nor understood everywhere. Since our MOS advises against using abbreviations unless they can be expected to be understood by anyone, and also because "Wikipedia is not paper", I replace such abbreviated page ranges by their expanded form when I run into them - and so far noone ever complained. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Some academic journals, especially on-line ones, maintain a volume/issue numbering, but no longer assign sequential page numbers within issues. Rather, each article has a number, and its page numbers start at 1.

For example, consider

• Agnese, R.; et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration) (2017-04-07). "Projected sensitivity of the SuperCDMS SNOLAB experiment" (PDF).
  doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.082002. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |class= ignored (help
  )